Next, Aristobulus is said to affirm that at the Passover both the sun and the moon must have passed the equinoctial points. But the version is incorrect. His real statement is, that, in the feast of the Exodus, not only the sun, but also the moon, must pass the equinoctial points (εξ αναγκης δια πορευεσθαι το ισημερινόν τμήμα). In other words, the sun must be at the vernal, and the moon at the autumnal equinox. The alleged proofs of the rule are thus quite indecisive. The exact time of the equinox, in the first century, would be between the noon of March 22 and March 23. The Jews, however, might account it sufficient that it should occur before the middle of the feast, which would bring its limit to March 18th, as in the canon of Hippolytus. Or, as Mr. Benson observes, even if they adopted the rule that the Passover should follow the equinox, "it does not follow that it never would precede it, as determined by the accuracy of modern days, unless their mode of ascertaining it were equally accurate." The best astronomers of the age, whom Cæsar employed in forming the Julian Calendar, seem to have erred two days in fixing its time, and hence an error of four days might not be impossible among the Jews; while there is no Divine command which would be broken by this early celebration. One doubt only remains,--whether the first-fruits could be ready to be offered at that time. Mr. Cuninghame attaches great weight to this difficulty in Mr. Browne's view. The Passover, however, by the rule which he himself adopts, might be as early as March 22; and hence there is little difficulty in supposing that the first-fruits might be ready, four days earlier still, in a forward season. On the other hand, there is no force in the rule, which Mr. Browne adopts from Philo and Josephus, to fix the Passover in A.D. 33, or even in A.D. 30, to the Thursday. The statement of Philo is merely this, that the Passover is held (μέλλοντος του σεληνιακού κυκλου γινεσθαι πλησιφαούς), or when the moon is about to be full. Taken strictly, this implies that the full moon must be on, and not before, the 15th of Nisan. In A.D. 30 the full moon was about 10 p. m. on Thursday, and in A.D. 33, about 4 p. m. on Friday. In either case, Friday was the Jewish day on which it fell, and the Passover, according to the rule, would be on Thursday. But the words will not bear so rigid a construction. In the first place, the lunar month would then have to begin very often, not only before the phase, but before the conjunction. Now it is far clearer, from the law of Moses, that the month must begin after the new moon, than that the Passover is before the full moon. This is confirmed by all those traditions which mention the phase of the moon, as the actual mode by which the calendar was determined. Again, if the words are explained by another passage, and even by common sense, they must refer to the full moon as visible only. They will be satisfied, if the moon was not yet full, when she set before the passover. Thus modified, the rule would imply that the Passover was held on the evening of that day, reckoned from sunrise to sunrise, on which the moon came to opposition. But there is another rule, still more probable, with regard to the Jewish passover-day. It must surely be thought most unnatural that a month should be fixed by its middle, and not by its beginning. Hence Ideler and other writers of the greatest research adopt the statement of Maimonides, and believe that the opening of the month was determined by the first visible phase of the new moon. Mr. Cuninghame himself reasons on this supposition. Now the moon is seen, at earliest, when about eighteen hours old, or almost exactly fourteen days before it is full. If less than eighteen hours old when it sets, it will not be seen till the next evening. And hence we have a rule differing by twenty-two hours from that which Mr. Browne and Mr. Greswell have followed; and the Jewish day, (only reckoned from two hours after sunset,) on which the moon is full, will be the 14th, and not as with them, the 15th of Nisan. We may sum up the result of this inquiry as follows. The most exact and simple astronomical rule, to determine the passover-day, must be that which makes the first of Nisan begin on the first evening after the true conjunction, or the real new moon. The most simple popular rule, adapted for civil use, would be that the first of Nisan should be the first evening on which the new moon may be seen. The phase of two previous months would in this case always supply the want of an actual observation. The first rule may be thus expressed: The day of the full moon, reckoned from noon to noon, includes in it the Passover, and the beginning of the 15th of Nisan. The second is similar. The day of the full moon, reckoned from 7 or 8 in the evening, ends with the Passover and the evening before the 15th of Nisan. The rule of Mr. Browne antedates the former by six hours, and the latter by nearly a whole day. The first may be called the time of the true, and the other of the actual or apparent Passover. The list for the three years will then be as follows: Full Moon. A.D. 29. March 18-21h. True Passover. Apparent. When we compare these dates with the gospel history, the nature of the result is very interesting, and somewhat remarkable. If the Passion occurred A.D. 29, or A.D. 33, then the Pharisees must have held it according to the true date; and our Lord himself before its legal time, by a designed anticipation. This is possible, doubtless, but it seems to us rather improbable. It is more likely that the Pharisees would fix the opening of the month by the actual phase of the moon; and that our Lord, who came to fulfil the law, would not anticipate the true time of celebration. But in the year A.D. 30, the correspondence is more striking. The strict, scientific date of the 14th of Nisan would be Thursday, when our Lord partook of it with the disciples, and which St. Luke calls the day when the passover ought to be killed. The popular date, whether determined by observing the earliest phase of the moon, or by the rule which, as we know, afterwards prevailed, of transferring it from the 1st, 3d, and 5th, to the 2nd, 4th, and 6th days of the week, would be on the Friday; and on that day it was plainly kept by Pharisees, and probably by the great body of the Jews. This coincidence, which Mr. Greswell, from his double error, has failed to observe, and thus been driven by his oversight into a line of reasoning fatal to his own system, is certainly very striking, since it would clear up the great difficulty which has divided commentators for ages, and which many have thought it quite hopeless to explain. This limited inquiry into the year of our Lord's Passion, must be incomplete, without a further view of collateral evidence, arising from the probable date of the Nativity and Baptism, and the length of our Saviour's ministry. The result so far, is very clear. Early tradition, through four centuries, points uniformly to a date A.D. 28-30, and commonly to the middle of these three years, A.D. 29, or J.P. 4742. The astronomical argument from the Passover-day, is insufficient to decide the question. It proves only that three years are inadmissible, A.D. 28, 31, 32, and that three are admissible,- March 18, A.D. 29; April 7, A.D. 30; and April 3, A.D. 33. The correspondence with the history of the Last Supper is doubly striking, if we refer it to the second of these years. Hence we infer that Usher's date, however respectable its patrons, has the lowest external evidence of the three, and is not superior on astronomical grounds. On the contrary, the year A.D. 29 has the fullest support of early tradition, and the following year the most remarkable accordance with the gospel narrative. To decide finally between them, would require the full examination of those other important eras, the Baptism and Nativity of our blessed Lord. We hope to resume the subject before long, when we have been able to examine thoroughly the subject of the Egyptian monuments, which has led us to enter on this new ground, from our conviction of the new danger which assails the faith of the Church. In mounting upward to those early times, we shall hope, in passing, to establish clearly the true times of Daniel, which one noble author on our list has obscured, in our opinion, with several paradoxes of chronology, very injurious and unsettling to the minds of Christians. The importance of the subject, in the new form it begins to assume, must plead our excuse for introducing these abstract disquisitions. Our main purpose, in the remarks already offered, has been to show the extreme caution which is needed in all such inquiries, and the danger or unprofitableness of a hasty decision, where doubtful arguments are mistaken for scientific demonstration. From the sublime to the ridiculous there is only a step; and the same is true of groundless dogmatism, and sceptical uncertainty. Each, by the recoil, helps to produce the other. Now, when the sepulchres of Etruria and the tombs of Egypt are ransacked by the busy hands of science, and speak, with a voice from the dead, to disclose the secrets of the world's infancy, it is time for the Church to strengthen her hold on the living oracles of God. If this be wanting, these voices of fancied science from the midst of Egyptian darkness, will be only a voice of sorcery, a dangerous consultation with the dead, and bring us under that rebuke of the inspired prophet-"To the law and to the testimony; for if they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them." May British Christians never be led astray by the assumptions of pretended science, from that simple faith in the Divine word, which will be a sure anchor of the soul, in the hour of temptation that is coming on the world, to try them that dwell on the earth. THE CHURCH IN THE CATACOMBS: a Description of the Primitive Church of Rome, illustrated by its Sepulchral Remains. By CHARLES MAITLAND, M.D. London: Longmans. 1846. WE can speak in terms of high commendation, both of the subject of this work and of its execution. The subject is admirably chosen. Precise and definite ideas of Christianity, as it appeared on earth in the times that immediately followed the apostolic age, are exceedingly wanted in the discussions that now agitate the Church; and this is a contribution of aid, and a valuable one, towards the attainment of them. The execution is equally felicitous. By dint of long and devoted labour, the author has collected a vast mass of inscriptions, and other undoubted records of the first Church of Rome, which he has arranged in a scholarly manner, and illustrated, without overloading, with patristic learning. The account of his labours, and the scenes of them, will be best given in his own words. "The subterranean galleries which penetrate the soil surrounding the city of Rome, after having for four centuries served as a refuge and a sanctuary to the ancient Church, were nearly lost sight of during the disorder occasioned by barbarian invasions. As the knowledge of their windings could be preserved only by constant use, the principal entrances only remained accessible; and even these were gradually neglected and blocked up by rubbish, with the exception of two or three, which were still resorted to, and decorated afresh from time to time. In the sixteenth century, the whole range of catacombs was re-opened, and the entire contents, which had remained absolutely untouched during more than a thousand years, were restored to the world at a time when the recent revival of letters enabled the learned to profit by the discovery. From that time to the present, Romanist writers have been suffered to claim identity in discipline and doctrine with the church that occupied the catacombs; while an attempt has scarcely been made to show from these remains the more striking resemblance existing between our Reformed Church and that of primitive Rome. "It is difficult now to realize the impression which must have been made upon the first explorers of this subterranean city. A vast necropolis, rich in the bones of saints and martyrs; a stupendous testimony to the truth of Christian history, and, consequently, to that of Christianity itself; a faithful record of the trials of a persecuted Church;-such were the objects presented to their view; and so great was the enthusiasm with which they devoted themselves to the research, that two of the earliest writers on the Catacombs of Rome, Bosio and Boldetti, occupied thirty years each in collecting materials for their respective works, which in both instances remained to be edited by their survivors. "We must now have recourse to the museums of Rome, and the works of antiquarians, in order to understand the arrangement of the Catacombs at the time of their use as cemeteries. From the removal of everything portable to a place of greater security and more easy access, as well as from the difficulty of personally examining these dangerous galleries, beyond the mere |